Search

It is becoming apparent that changes in climatic and demographic distributions are increasing the frequency and social impact of many 'natural hazards', including wildfires (or 'bushfires' in Australia). Across many national contexts, the governmental agencies legally responsible for 'managing' such hazards been called upon to provide greater foresight into the potential consequences, occurrence and behaviour of these dynamic phenomena. These conditions, of growing occurrence and expectation, have given rise to new anticipatory regimes, tools, practitioners and expertise tasked with revealing near and distant fiery futures. Drawing on interviews with Fire Behaviour Analysts from across the fire-prone continent of Australia, this article examines how their expertise has emerged and become institutionalized, exploring how its embedding in bushfire management agencies reveals cultural boundaries and tensions. This article provides important insight into the human and nonhuman infrastructures enrolled in predicting and managing landscape fires, foregrounding the wider social and political implications of these infrastructures and how their 'fuzzy boundaries' are negotiated by practitioners. Such empirical studies of expertise in practice are also, we suggest, necessary to the continued refinement of existing critiques of expertise as an individual capacity, derived from science and serving established social orders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humans are ‘fire creatures’ that have used fire for millennia to shape local environments to diverse purposes. Our capacity for combustion has also forced global climatic changes and rendered the planet increasingly flammable, creating the conditions for progressively higher impact bushfires now and into the future. Meanwhile, governments in fire-prone countries such as Australia have continued to allow settlements to be established (and re-established) in wildland-urban interfaces. Like other ‘natural hazards’, bushfire is thereby a social phenomenon bound up with human values, practices and decisions. But, while studies of the social dimensions of ‘natural hazards’ are steadily rising, this scholarship has rarely addressed natural hazard management practitioners directly, precisely those authorised and entrusted to intervene in the distribution of hazard probabilities and consequences. This paper seeks to help remediate this research gap, illustrating how cultural, ecological, economic and political factors thoroughly condition hazard management and modes of intervention. Drawing on a case study in the Northern Territory’s Greater Darwin region, this paper suggests not only that examining such sociocultural realities provides new insights into hazards and their distribution, but also that attention to such issues is crucial to understanding our flammable future in the Anthropocene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I examine recent influential accounts of the bushfire knowledge and practices of Aboriginal peoples and their ancestors on the Australian continent, drawing attention to how these accounts accord with problematic and ecomodernist aspects of contemporary bushfire management discourse. Developing a two-part critique of this discourse, I suggest both that we should accord the ecological contributions of Aboriginal peoples and their ancestors significantly greater esteem, and that the recent accounts potentially limit the grounds for contemporary Aboriginal peoples' engagements in the management of their territories or "Country". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]